tv [untitled] October 30, 2010 1:30am-2:00am PST
what are the things that the h.p.c. is proposing? if we can't have a joint hearing, because that's kind of physically difficult given our schedules, you know. >> so you're asking for -- commissioner olague: additional hearings, yeah. like on 10 and 11. i like additional hearings with some consideration given and discussion given to what the h.p.c.'s input is. >> tara sullivan from the department. taking back to what the director was asking, i just want to clarify. and i am more than happy to have in-depth discussions with the planning commission on preservation issues. so we will go ahead and start scheduling some hearings. commissioner olague: yeah. >> items to try to get in. kind of go through it. maybe not as line-by-line as we did with the h.p.c., but issue by issue or however you want to do it. but i just want to make sure that that's what you're requesting. commissioner olague: i think the majority of this commission is requesting it. >> and then the h.p.c. will continue to go on with article 11, and then we can somehow
merge all of this in the next few months. commissioner olague: but make sure that, yeah, that we're part of the discussions on that. >> ok. all right. commissioner olague: that's what i'm hearing from the majority of this commission. president miguel: i know there are people rung in but there is a motion second to continue which is nondebatable. commissioner olague: commissioner with the instruction that you're hearing -- >> commissioners, first of all, let me -- since this is a joint commission, if the desire with the motion on the floor is the desire to cease discussion now, today, is that the desire? commissioner olague: yeah. >> you want to cease discussion? you want to vote on the motion? clearly no other action can take place with this motion at the moment. so is this a motion of just the planning commission or of the joint body?
planning commission motion. commissioner olague: yeah. because it has to do with the legislation. whatever. >> so for that, the question before -- yes, a date or is it indefinite or what? >> [inaudible] commissioner olague: we want to continue discussion. >> so it's an indefinite. commissioner olague: indefinite. >> ok. the motion on the floor then for the planning commission only is an indefinite continuance on that motion. [roll call] that motion passes 5-1 with commissioner sugaya voting against. president miguel: ok. the hearing is still continuing. commissioner sugaya?
commissioner sugaya: the direction of the planning commission's discussion and concerns i feel are more appropriately directed toward the historic preservation. because that's where we would be talking about issues such as historic preservation policies, historic preservation goals and objectives, and the way historic preservation in this city can be looked at by, you know, both the planning commission, i suppose, and the historic preservation commission. ultimately the board of supervisors. i think additional discussion on tweaking the ordinance will go nowhere. and would just result in delays that i think -- you know, will not be productive. that's why i voted against the continuance. i think if the commission really feels -- and i do, too, that there are matters of
gentrification issues, equity issues, broadening, perhaps, the concept of historic preservation. it's a social and cultural preservation as well. and getting communities involved on that level, then i think the discussion appropriately surrounds the historic preservation element which is kicking around somewhere. or maybe not. in the department. so. president miguel: commissioner damkroger? commissioner damkroger: charles and i were commencing on ways for the two bodies to work together on this. we could send delegates or two delegates to your meeting and then have a joint meeting again after that to discuss proposals. so we'd like to find ways in which we could help hasten this. president miguel: appreciate it.
director chase: it is our intent to help as much as possible. what we want to accomplish is understood by you so that can you understand what our thought process was. and we're very happy to do that in the public forum at your hearing and again at a potential joint hearing if that would meet your needs. president miguel: commissioner martinez? commissioner martinez: i would like to make a motion for my commission to amend the language in article 10 around the application of the secretary of interior standards to reflect the language that we came up with for article 11. in terms of it being mitigated by local interpretations or whatever that language was. president chase: thank you,
commissioner. let's wait to see if we have -- >> [inaudible] >> i do believe that is correct. yes, you're allowed to have the discussion. but maybe you should at your next hearing, i will be there with article 11. and i will put 10 on for discussion it sounds like there's going to be some tweaks to 10 anyway per city attorney and maybe incorporating some of your article 11 issues into 10. so we can just handle that at your next hearing and bring that back, if you would like. commissioner martinez: i just wanted to make sure that that's not overlooked. >> yeah. i had that in my head. and i will be working with linda to get a series of maybe informationals over the next month or so, as soon as possible. so they can start going through section by section article 10. so that's what i'll do. and we can fold any additional amendments into the discussions if you would like.
president miguel: thank you. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i appreciate commissioner damkroger's suggestion in when we have a hearing maybe have some members of the h.p.c. present. i would suggest that staff work with the h.p.c. before our next hearing, planning, to try to consolidate some of the language that they feel is appropriate into the revisions. and then i would hope that one hearing at the planning commission, maybe two at the most. because we're looking at particularly articles 10 and 11. a lot of the things that were brought up today were important, but they're more dealing with the preservation element. you know, housing, general concerns, which are important concerns. but they're not really what we're on. and i think we want to get these things cleaned up and get them finalized with the understanding that we'll always be concerned about those issues that were discussed today. president miguel: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: yes. i'd like to thank the h.p.c. for their volunteering some of
their members to come to planning commission. ms. sullivan, i assume that h.p.c. will also be continuing deliberations on at least article 11 and perhaps, i don't know commissioner martinez brought up one amendment to 10, so those will be scheduled in the future, i assume. >> i have an outstanding, longstanding permanent agenda item. also section 309 they would like to review because it relates to article 11 and the downtown review. commissioner martinez: if that's the case and if they're interested, commissioners, we might want to have some people go to the h.p.c. hearing as well. president miguel: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: is the planning commission prepared to summarize its comment in a concise way and forward them to the members of the historic preservation commission to help
dialogue? and these comments would reflect the comments of the public from today? it would be shedding more light and really helping all of us to understand together what we need to do. president miguel: having been at a number of joint commission hearings of various commissions, i think this hearing this morning has been the most fruitful of anything. and one in which there has been the most give and take, back and forth comments of any, very truthfully. i'm greatly appreciative of it. i have to comment on what was made earlier. regarding what has happened to san francisco that could have preserved historic structures and districts. unfortunately a combination of what was then redevelopment thinking and that then sitting
board of supervisors prevented that. thankfully both bodies are much more cognizant of the city than they were at that time, at least i hope so. yes very, very much so. but we really appreciate it. and i think the suggestion that we, to some extent, attend and perhaps comment at each other's hearings, as much as it's a lot of work, could also be fruitful. so i really appreciate the cooperation. as i say, it's beyond what we've had before as far as a real exchange of information at joint hearings. staff, you've done a great job. i appreciate the fact we're giving you more work, but i think it's coming together. and to the members of the public, you've been very, very
thoughtful in your comments. and they will be taken into consideration. >> thank you. commissioners, with that, that concludes this item. the joint bodies are in recess until 1:30. president miguel: i think 2:00 is more logical. >> ok. your calendar says 1:30. the chair is now stating that they will not start the joint hearing again until 2:00 p.m. president miguel: to allow for some lunch. >> very good. president miguel: thank you. 's welcome back to the planning commission. the joint session is back in session from recess. let me remind all of you to turn off your phones, your pagers,
and an electronic device that will sound off during the proceedings. they're setting up overflow. we will ask everyone who is standing to go to the overflow space. we will also ask you because this is a credit room and the commission will hear testimonys it is given, if you feel that you need to discuss this, please take the discussion and outside. we will ask all of you standing to leave the room. i will call roll again. ouand we have president miguel, commissioner said dianne, commissioner olague, --
agenda item. there is public comment on the won closed item and that is a certification of the eir itself. >> let me announced that the north light cord is set up for overflow. q. can hear the proceedings from the space. if we call your name, we will give you time to come up. >> after you have finished speaking, then you can finish and it go and then people will be will to come up. this will move the hearing
we have to reveal her relationship with one of my partners. she lives across the street from the fairmont hotel. therefore, i should reveal that relationship. we have not discussed the matter within the confines of the office. even except for some procedural issues, i am privy to these ahead of the public. unless the commission has comments which you are free to bring up, i feel that i can be fair and impartial. >> thank you. please.
and >> -- occupies this is located on the northeast corner directly opposite the fairmont. outhis is a nonprofit organizatn with 600 members. the club shares its facilities with many of the other non profits. individuals are eligible for membership regardless of race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation. despite the fact that this is the most effective of the surrounding buildings, the developers waited until tuesday of this week to meet with the club to share their plans but.
this included a photo montage. we were crusted properties -- copies of the planned -- we requested copies of the plan but we are not provided with them. although the fairmont is requesting the construction of a tower that is not allowable, we do not object to them grandfathering their existing envelope. we are prepared to support a new tower but a four-story, low- rise conforming to the fairmont's existing complex. but we strongly object to is the attempt to add a bulky 5 story addition on top of the current
podium. considering that today's on slope -- envoelope, this walls f the beautiful east facade. this edition is no thing of beauty. one thing that was correct was to mesh the height of the university club and other buildings that share this block and this principle should be maintained. we ask you to disallow the proposed five stories. in fact, our preference would be for the fairmont to do something positive by restoring the guardian of the original
design. or the fairmont to make such a remedial gift, the immerse the club would work a greater tower -- the university club working greater tower of today. >> of will be reading some comments. "the store cannot hill requests that the planning commission declined to certify the fairmont project. this fails to include adequate analysis of the impact of new construction on the integrity of the fairmont hotel landmark. as pointed out in the comments,
the project analysis and consideration of(3 were skewed from the outset as the project objectives. the eir failed to analyze a reasonable range of project alternatives. additional project alternatives must be considered to be potentially significant historic resource impact. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i live with my family in a historic building near the fairmont. i am here to summarize some of the public comments you are about to hear on the inadequacy
of the project. we can't believe the lack of project alternatives. we understand that at minimum, there should be a two-code alternative, in no-demolition alternative, and a power alternatives. it gives the public no imperative or choice, and this a mission -- omission is fundamentally mistaken. clearly, demolishing a 23-story building with an 48-ft -- within 40 feet of another building is too great for litigation. it was determined to be less than significant. we are talking about the largest
demolition and new construction project since the great fire and earthquake. this fails to analyze in detail the loading dock deficiency and would not believe -- or relieve disruptions. this fails to seriously consider impact on the fairmont, cable cars, and the historic district. this project conforms to the general plan -- or does not conform to the general plan. it contends that the project will not impact the eastern view of the fairmont. we stand with the historic preservation commission in saying that the entire as the exception is flawed -- aesthetic section is flawed.
it is totally unsatisfactory and contradictory. we request that this eir not be certified. thank you. president miguel: following this, linda stone, irma, jim -- >> i am a resident and property owner in san francisco. it is my understanding that the draft will be certified today under the condition that if it is deemed adequate with completeenss. -- completeness. we don't believe that an attempt was made for the advocacy of the public community. it is unbelievable, and one has
to ask, what plan are they on? there are over 700 pages with the proposed project costing millions of dollars and identify only one significant unavoidable impact, how can that be? that's incredible. it defies all reasonable logic and corrupt the true intent. mainly finding a viable way to utilize the existing power. the magnitude of this development defined by its massive size, time duration of demolition and construction, the ongoing severe disruption of daily life for over three years for those who live and visit the district of san francisco. it begs the question if the applicant is providing a gross,
overriding accommodation and flexibility to jam the project down the community's throat. it will be one of the most gigantic demolition and constructions in city history. evaluating the environmental impact, i and others have heard with breakneck speed, they have put this document together quickly so as to not create a public media debate and have the 2005 temporary 18-month moratorium reinstituted by the board of supervisors as a permanent ban on hotel-condo conversion. you will be putting your finger prints on an l-conceived project -- ill-conceived project.
how can you verify without further analysis and public advocacy of your position's mandate of making sure that their play and a true environmental impact upon the community is truly mitigated without lingering doubt. i am not against the development. we don't want her an unfair eir that places [chime] -- >> thank you for your time. i live across the street from the fairmont hotel. i am a participant in the historic group. we formed the organization in the hope of being able to put together a group of people that could work with fairmont to
create this project. it would serve the city, the neighborhood, and the interest of the fairmont hotel. we have been frustrated throughout the year that -the hotel has not been willing to sit down and talk to us. we are concerned that the approach they have taken, it is our interest we are interested in and we don't care about your interest, your concerns, or the city concerns. that leads us here. it leads us to take the positions we are taking. it is one supreme example of what i think to be a high level of corporate arrogance on the part of the fairmont owners. i have worked over 40 years as a lawyer.